[jveritas]

They democrats have a very little chance to control the House in 2006. However suppose they did and controlled the House and started impeachment, they still cannot get 67 senators to remove him from office.

[areafiftyone]

The democrats have a very little chance to control the House in 2006. However suppose they did and controlled the House and started impeachment, they still cannot get 67 senators to remove him from office.

Thank god for that.

[Owen]

>
They democrats have a very little chance to control the House in 2006. However suppose they did and controlled the House and started impeachment, they still cannot get 67 senators to remove him from office.
>

What in the world are you thinking? You want history to view President Bush as equivalent to Clinton?

Every POSSIBLE effort in volunteering and fundraising must take place to win non safe House districts. The only way to deny those seats to the Dems is to send money to the GOP. Period and full stop.

[staytrue]

they still cannot get 67 senators to remove him from office.

It is not about conviction. It is about staging a sham trial with a nonstop parade of bogus witnesses and bogus "facts" that the MSM will broadcast with little or any broadcast of rebuttal. In fact, with conyers as chairman, he can greatly limit the time for any opposing views.

[penowa]

...suppose they did and controlled the House and started impeachment, they still cannot get 67 senators to remove him from office.

If I were you, I would not be putting any wagers on that.